We have very different definitions of “almost exactly like Battlefield”.
Every game with a billion Dollar budget like battlefield will have a turd like EA attached.
If you want to be morally superior and boycott them you will have to make some drawbacks in production quality. No game by an Indie or AA studio can be “almost exactly like battlefield”.
Production quality has nothing to do with it. Battlefield 2 was made 20 years ago by a much smaller team than makes Battlefield today, and I’d be happy to see teams that size or smaller approximating the game mode, map size, and systems of a Battlefield game. The truth is that the genre evaporated. Everyone chases live service, and if you’re just making a live service, what niche do you fill that Battlefield proper doesn’t serve? I’m starved for some good shooters lately.
If you want good FPS, there are tons of really excellent. But I’m getting more that you are after arcadey military FPS.
What I don’t want is a live service, and I can’t find any multiplayer FPS made lately that are built to survive the servers being shut down.
Ancalagon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That’s fair. Battlefield is the most basic of all three. COD being even more basic with the elimination small maps. They all have a class system, military assets, and the same basic concept of teams. The difference is in the realism/depth of how far you want to go. Now, what OP is asking for is not practical from a business standpoint. You need deviation to separate your product. So there is going to be that deviation to the point of it being worthwhile to compete with the battlefield. But never to be what OP is asking for. It isn’t smart business.